|
Capitalism is evil?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
According to Michael Moore it is. I guess socialism isnt evil. Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Kim Jung Il, Mao etc and they will give you a big thumbs up for socialism!
Moore is a douche
| quote: |
By Mike Collett-White
VENICE (Reuters) - Capitalism is evil. That is the conclusion of U.S. documentary maker Michael Moore's latest movie "Capitalism: A Love Story," which premieres at the Venice film festival on Sunday.
Blending his trademark humor with tragic individual stories, archive footage and publicity stunts, the 55-year-old launches an attack on the capitalist system, arguing that it benefits the rich and condemns millions to poverty.
The bad guys in Moore's mind are big banks and hedge funds which "gambled" investors' money in complex derivatives that few, if any, really understood and which belonged in the casino. Meanwhile, large companies have been prepared to lay off thousands of staff despite boasting record profits.
The filmmaker also attacks the uncomfortably close relationship between banks, politicians and U.S. Treasury officials, meaning that regulation has been changed to favor the few on Wall Street rather than the many on Main Street.
He says that by encouraging ordinary Americans to borrow against the value of their homes, businesses created the conditions that led to the financial crisis, and with it to homelessness and unemployment.
Moore interviews priests who believe that capitalism is anti-Christian, because it fails to protect the poor and encourages greed.
"Essentially we have a law which says gambling is illegal but we've allowed Wall Street to do this and they've played with people's money and taken it into these crazy areas of derivatives," Moore told an audience in Venice.
"They need more than just regulation. We need to structure ourselves differently in order to create finance and money, support for jobs, businesses, etc, to keep a healthy economy going."
GREEN SHOOTS?
Amid the gloom, Moore detects the beginnings of a popular movement against unbridled capitalism, and believes President Barack Obama's rise to power may bolster it.
The film follows factory workers who stage a sit-in at a Chicago glass factory when they are sacked with little warning and no pay and who eventually prevail over the bank.
And a group of citizens occupies a home that has been repossessed and boarded up by the lending company, forcing the police who come to evict them to back down.
"Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil," the two-hour movie concludes.
"You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy."
Capitalism: A Love Story re-visits some of Moore's earlier movies, including a trip to his native Flint where his father was a car assembly line worker and was able to buy a home, a car, educate his children and look forward to a decent pension.
But he brings it up to date with an examination of the financial crisis, demanding, but failing, to speak to the bosses of companies at the center of the collapse and asking traders whether they can explain to him exactly what derivatives are.
When he asks for their advice, one man out of shot can be heard replying: "Don't make any more movies."
Moore drives a truck up to some of the biggest banks in New York and, through a loud speaker, demands they give back the hundreds of billions of bailout dollars to the country.
And he interviews an employee of a company which buys up re-possessed, or "distressed" properties at a fraction of their original value and which is called Condo Vultures. |
|
|
|
| pmoisse |
Any "ism" taken to the extreme is bound to cause trouble. Moore's schtick is to take things to extremes to prove a point (a style which I enjoy myself).
If socialism is such a bad word these days, maybe collectivism should be launched as the non-commie alternative.
For me, now living over here in socialist western Europe, watching all media show over socialist this, and fascist that (whether it's US or Canadian political asshats on display), I find it quite laughable.
The opposing arguments to the healthcare issues in the US are so shamelessly selfish it's disgusting.
If that country didn't rack up a gazillion dollars in war debt, paying for healthcare wouldn't have been a big deal if they were ok with borrowing a similar sum of money to cover it.
If countries like Japan, the Nordics, France, Germany etc can get along just fine with managed healthcare, why can't Canada and the US?
Healthcare over here isn't free. You need to pay for insurance. The difference is that the whole thing is regulated to avoid the end user being bent over and ripped off for crap services. hell, in the US, even if you pay your insurance, they still have the right to deny you coverage without much to back that up!
Until people set aside their selfishness and accept that they need to pay higher taxes to support the stupid money being spent by their government (speaking mostly about the US here), the system will continue to be useless, and the status quo will continue until the whole house of cards falls down. |
|
|
| VDub |
Agreed...
I think that the US taking capitalism to an extreme turns it into a bad thing...
Just like socialism to an extreme doesn't work either...
And yes Moore takes his views to an extreme as well but I thInk he does it for the sake of making his films controversial in order to sell more tickets.... |
|
|
| VDub |
And I didn't know that Hitler was a socialist....
Or Kim Jong Il...
I thought they were just nuts... |
|
|
| Sly_Guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
And I didn't know that Hitler was a socialist....
Or Kim Jong Il...
I thought they were just nuts... |
yeah, I woulda thought that masking fascism with the word socialism doesn't make them socialists. |
|
|
| me@t k@tie |
Comparing socialism to dictatorship is stupid because there are socialist countries in Northern Europe which work just fine (no genocide, high quality of life, etc). Hearing such a comparison by none other than Jayx1 is not surprising at all, though.
Michael Moore's point is equally stupid. Capitalism isn't evil per se; unregulated capitalism is. The problem with the US isn't just capitalism, but rather that they allowed capitalism to control the government and not vice versa. |
|
|
| Dr. Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
According to Michael Moore it is. I guess socialism isnt evil. Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Kim Jung Il, Mao etc and they will give you a big thumbs up for socialism!
Moore is a douche |
 |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by pmoisse
Any "ism" taken to the extreme is bound to cause trouble. |
And your position is that the U.S. takes "capitalism" to an extreme, is it? You'd think they'd have a slightly smaller government if that were the case.
| quote: | | If socialism is such a bad word these days, maybe collectivism should be launched as the non-commie alternative. |
Believe me, there is nothing we right-wing nuts would love more than for you to start labeling it for what it really is.
| quote: | | The opposing arguments to the healthcare issues in the US are so shamelessly selfish it's disgusting. |
Oh? Such as? I can't wait to hear this.
| quote: | | If countries like Japan, the Nordics, France, Germany etc can get along just fine with managed healthcare, why can't Canada and the US? |
None of those countries prohibit individuals from seeking private care, or practitioners from offering it. In fact, only Canada has this policy today, and only the ex-Soviet Union had it in the past.
And if you don't believe that the U.S. health care system is already managed/regulated then you need to take your head out of your ass and actually visit a hospital there sometime.
| quote: | | Until people set aside their selfishness and accept that they need to pay higher taxes to support the stupid money being spent by their government (speaking mostly about the US here), the system will continue to be useless, and the status quo will continue until the whole house of cards falls down. |
Or the government could spend less money. But that's just crazy, right?
| quote: | Originally posted by Sly_Guy
yeah, I woulda thought that masking fascism with the word socialism doesn't make them socialists. |
The Nazis were socialists. It wasn't just a name. Didn't you learn this in grade school?
And the Soviets... well, if you're going to argue that they weren't socialist, you're as nuts as they were.
Mao, communist, through and through.
Kim Jong-Il, debatable, I'd call his regime more of a "kleptocracy." For all of communism's flaws, I think the government has to actually give something back in order for it to retain that label.
I've heard this "it's just a label" argument hundreds of times before... never with a shred of evidence to back it up. |
|
|
| Anton |
This is so stupid, I'm sick of people lumping together socialism with communism, fascism, dictatorships, or totalitarianism. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro all had their different brands of ideology which can't be lumped into "socialism." It's too easy these days to equate big government with communism, but unless someone is advocating for the elimination of private property, they aren't really communist are they?
Also, for those people who are so against government spending, what do they really expect? Sometimes you need government for services, and if one government spends more than another that doesn't automatically make it socialist. |
|
|
| Vivid Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by pmoisse
Any "ism" taken to the extreme is bound to cause trouble. |
jism!? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Anton
This is so stupid, I'm sick of people lumping together socialism with communism, fascism, dictatorships, or totalitarianism. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro all had their different brands of ideology which can't be lumped into "socialism." It's too easy these days to equate big government with communism, but unless someone is advocating for the elimination of private property, they aren't really communist are they? |
Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were all documented socialists. Just because you're sick of hearing it doesn't make it any less true. And socialism is in fact a synonym for communism; that is where the term came from.
You are right in one respect, which is that big government is not necessarily socialist. However, many advocates of big government either have the ultimate (perhaps unspoken) goal of elimination of private property, or say they oppose that principle but either don't realize or don't care that their other ideals (blind hatred of "profits" and the "rich", for one thing) ultimately converge on said goal.
| quote: | | Also, for those people who are so against government spending, what do they really expect? Sometimes you need government for services, and if one government spends more than another that doesn't automatically make it socialist. |
"Need" is the operative word here. The only service we "need" the government to perform is law enforcement and national defense (and many would argue that we shouldn't depend on the government for either of those things). Every other service can be performed by private enterprise, and every other service has been demonstrated to be higher quality when performed by private enterprise. |
|
|
| Anton |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were all documented socialists. Just because you're sick of hearing it doesn't make it any less true. And socialism is in fact a synonym for communism; that is where the term came from. |
I wouldn't say they were documented socialists - and documented by who? You could maybe argue that they had socialist policies. But that doesn't make socialism inherently evil.
| quote: | | You are right in one respect, which is that big government is not necessarily socialist. However, many advocates of big government either have the ultimate (perhaps unspoken) goal of elimination of private property, or say they oppose that principle but either don't realize or don't care that their other ideals (blind hatred of "profits" and the "rich", for one thing) ultimately converge on said goal. |
I have never heard of any politician argue for the abolishment of private property, that is just a utopian dream.
Personally, I don't hate profits or the rich. However, it depends how those profits are made and how that person becomes rich in the first place. I know there are a lot of honest rich people around, but I also know that some make money simply by exploitation and underhandedness. I would say that Micheal Moore and other "socialists" offer a critique of capitalism, and do not argue for the total elimination of it. Rather, they argue more for reform. The problem is that every time someone critiques capitalism they automatically get labeled a socialist, communist, or fascist.
| quote: | | "Need" is the operative word here. The only service we "need" the government to perform is law enforcement and national defense (and many would argue that we shouldn't depend on the government for either of those things). Every other service can be performed by private enterprise, and every other service has been demonstrated to be higher quality when performed by private enterprise. |
Even the smallest of small governments would need more than just national defense and law enforcement. There are legitimate reasons for having something privately run, however, in the United States I think this is taken too far.
Something like health care should not be exclusively run as a for-profit venture. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be ANY privately run health care institutions at all, but there should be an option available to all - in order to at least get some kind of basic care. Granted, there are those who would argue that government programs are wasteful etc, but I would rather have the government waste some tax dollars than see millions of people without health care.
As far as the debate over the efficacy of government run programs, studies have been published which support both opponents and proponents of such programs. "Quality" is very subjective and different methodologies or ideological leanings tend to produce different results. That aside, I do believe in private enterprise but it's just hard to imagine something like health care exclusively in the hands of corporations and insurance companies. |
|
|
|
|
